IETF Logo Mail Archive

Handling consensus on design issues identified during AD Review

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Tue, 20 October 2020 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 815A63A096B for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 05:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9VO8KBhWUAeD for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 05:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:211:32ff:fe22:186f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B3E23A0906 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 05:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:1daf:e4b6:4a47:5414] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:1daf:e4b6:4a47:5414]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 705BE607A5C for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 15:32:12 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1603197132; bh=J9+VesdY1oFIbtmPepbQw96YQrJLQkv2kPeDL/EauCM=; h=From:Subject:Date:To; b=WzCjAPj9l6zBKs2slDQ7E1EL+QIzYA1CzxW67+NVYwLxpWHfQxGsBfI7WZXSV34K0 JoCcSBBqTe7rmGqQv3Z5LA8N+sncT3XhrQqFL7bEi7thrtnhYgTgInKHi8uAnDyCbI b0pXLTka+xrGZsnkzIFTAhBgYS744hsp8KA7neog=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4C4E6F80-1DD1-4947-86F1-67FD89CE5E75"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Handling consensus on design issues identified during AD Review
Message-Id: <77CE8B82-23CB-40D0-B28C-B2BC1BEABED3@eggert.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 15:32:11 +0300
To: QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
X-MailScanner-ID: 705BE607A5C.A00BC
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/O69rUiegGjREXuOW4fiEdhiQEVs>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 12:32:21 -0000

Hi,

we are getting very close to publishing a new set of drafts that address Magnus' AD Review comments and will then be taken to IETF Last Call.

The vast majority of changes were editorial, but there were three "design" issues that changed the protocol in non-editorial ways, for which we need to confirm WG consensus. These issues are:

* #4183 Handshake failure (infinite ping-pong) when path MTU is asymmetric
  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4183

* #4216 Connection Migration Failure when Path MTU is asymmetric
  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4216

* #3701 The QUIC-TLS draft should define anti-forgery limits for packet lengths up to 2^16
  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3701

The resolutions for these issues are linked from the respective issue pages, and will be merged into the text of the upcoming draft revisions, together with the editorial changes.

Instead of performing a separate WG Last Call and further delaying the start of the IETF Last Call, we've agreed with our AD to judge WG consensus on these design changes as part of the IETF Last Call.

Thanks,
Lars and Lucas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email